I doubt you will have heard of this case, despite the act that it is very on trend with the media narrative of the moment, and covers the subject of sexual abuse clear to the left wing media's heart, it hasn't been covered by the BBC or the Guardian.

Why? Because it involves the establishment left. The top of the Labour Party. And the Fake News Guardian and BBC don't take their jobs quite so seriously when it involves one of their own, do they?

The reason nobody has likely heard of this case is because it's practically a non-story. There have been a couple of baseless accusations with no proof, no follow-up and no action demanded or taken. And it all happened well over a decade ago, so I don't know why you're posting in N&CA about it of all places…

(Original post by Dez)
The reason nobody has likely heard of this case is because it's practically a non-story. There have been a couple of baseless accusations with no proof, no follow-up and no action demanded or taken. And it all happened well over a decade ago, so I don't know why you're posting in N&CA about it of all places…

Action hasn’t been demanded because the complainant is dead. It is a non story because the fake news media have decided it isn’t one.

You are desperate to shove this under the carpet because it is one of your own. That’s the beginning and end of it. Why are you lefties so morally bankrupt? Why is there a vacuum where your consciences should be?

Snowflake safe spaces, jazz hands so no one gets offended by the noise of applause. But when a Labour MP gets assaulted by a Labour Cabinet Minister, it is a “ non story.”

(Original post by astutehirstute)
Action hasn’t been demanded because the complainant is dead. It is a non story because the fake news media have decided it isn’t one.

Indeed they have decided, though I see no evidence that this decision has been reached because the Labour party is involved. Practically no news outlet has reported on it, and those that have gave it a sentence or two at most. There just isn't any substance to go on here.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
You are desperate to shove this under the carpet because it is one of your own. That’s the beginning and end of it. Why are you lefties so morally bankrupt? Why is there a vacuum where your consciences should be?

Nice ad hominem. In any case this cabinet minister is hardly "one of my own". I've never voted Labour in my life.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
Snowflake safe spaces, jazz hands so no one gets offended by the noise of applause. But when a Labour MP gets assaulted by a Labour Cabinet Minister, it is a “ non story.”

Allegedly assaulted. Again, there's only been an accusation, with no proof given. Or are you saying we should accept this accusation without any proof? Guilty until proven innocent?

(Original post by astutehirstute)
This is not about legal “proof”, there can’t be a court case, the complainant is dead. It makes a change from the other historic sex abuse cases, I suppose, where the abuser is dead, but is still indicative of justice not being served. Jimmy Saville, (guilty until proven innocent too?) this, in both cases no closure, no justice. Offence’s gilded hand may shove by justice.

That may well be true, but I don't see why it's the media's responsibility to deal with this.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
This needs to be aired, given publicity. And the decision not to do so is an editorial decision.

I never disagreed with this, I just doubt the idea that the decision was made because of Labour involvement.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
You say politics has nothing to do with this

I say that the journalistic left is selective in its moral outrage, as are you. You may never have voted Labour but are of the left. Don’t try and deny it.

The "journalistic left" now is it? That would be, well, all of journalism then? Given that no media outlets are reporting on it at all bar a sentence or two well buried in obituary articles, clearly it all must be some sort of conspiracy to hide Labour's dirty dealings, and couldn't possibly be attributed to the fact that there is literally no story to report on here.

(Original post by generallee)
I doubt you will have heard of this case, despite the act that it is very on trend with the media narrative of the moment, and covers the subject of sexual abuse clear to the left wing media's heart, it hasn't been covered by the BBC or the Guardian.

Why? Because it involves the establishment left. The top of the Labour Party. And the Fake News Guardian and BBC don't take their jobs quite so seriously when it involves one of their own, do they?

The Labour Party is rotten to the core. And it is covered up by the mainstream media who all know the story, but refuse to raise it.

Some lefty girls are crazy, I'm not surprised there is more.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
Action hasn’t been demanded because the complainant is dead. It is a non story because the fake news media have decided it isn’t one.

You are desperate to shove this under the carpet because it is one of your own. That’s the beginning and end of it. Why are you lefties so morally bankrupt? Why is there a vacuum where your consciences should be?

Snowflake safe spaces, jazz hands so no one gets offended by the noise of applause. But when a Labour MP gets assaulted by a Labour Cabinet Minister, it is a “ non story.”

(Original post by generallee)
I doubt you will have heard of this case, despite the act that it is very on trend with the media narrative of the moment, and covers the subject of sexual abuse clear to the left wing media's heart, it hasn't been covered by the BBC or the Guardian.

Why? Because it involves the establishment left. The top of the Labour Party. And the Fake News Guardian and BBC don't take their jobs quite so seriously when it involves one of their own, do they?

The Labour Party is rotten to the core. And it is covered up by the mainstream media who all know the story, but refuse to raise it.

Maybe if the Tory party wasn't intent on one upping the Labour party in whatever is the new scandal (see Valenzuela when the Tories nullified thier attacks by the fact they were selling weapons to the government) there would be more focus on Labour.

It had been on the news anyway. This whole thing started with a Labour MP and that female labour activist came out with allegations that was covered by news.

(Original post by anarchism101)
There was a long Channel 4 segment about Labour and the Bex Bailey stuff just last night.

The news isn't talking about this because it isn't current news, it's decade-old news.

All of these stories took place years ago, decades ago. Saville, Ted Heath, even Michael Fallon is talking about moral standards being different 15 years ago to today.

The sexual incontinence of politicians is the biggest story of the moment, it was front page of the Times today, the Sunday newspapers are going to be splashing it wall to wall at the weekend, so they say.

Will this story be included? Maybe I am wrong, but I remain cynical.

I am not saying they are being consciously biased, they could be being of course, but I doubt that. It is unconscious bias; they are liberals and see things though their little liberal prism. Not a news story. As you say, and they presumably think, a decades old story. Nothing to see here, move on.

(Original post by anarchism101)
The events took place years or decades ago, but the emergence of the allegations (or new evidence about them) is much more recent.

The blog post you cite, by contrast, is about allegations from 10 years ago, about which there seem to have been no further evidence or developments since.

This is the hottest topic on the whole national news agenda right now, THE story. And these "allegations" as you put it, involve a prominent Cabinet Minister in the Blair Government. And one of his own MPs.

I put it to you that, in this current, arguably hysterical media environment, that makes them news, a supporting narrative to this whole imbroglio. The story should be included. There ought to be no statute of limitations on journalism, as there is on justice.

You really can't deny the bias of the media, (conscious and unconscious) especially the BBC which laughable claims to be totally politically neutral. Surely?

Everyone knows the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are biased, but this claim to a sort of ethereal political impartiality from the news organisation which effectively drives most of the agenda is what sticks in the craw.

I'll give you an example. One plucked out of so many, chosen because it happened this very day. The BBC has an agenda to influence public opinion on accepting refugees. It positions articles in certain ways, edits TV footage to advance its case, gives prominence to the side of the argument which wants to accept them. That is a political view.

Today a court case on the matter came to judgment. How does the BBC report it?

(Original post by generallee)
This is the hottest topic on the whole national news agenda right now, THE story. And these "allegations" as you put it, involve a prominent Cabinet Minister in the Blair Government. And one of his own MPs.

I put it to you that, in this current, arguably hysterical media environment, that makes them news, a supporting narrative to this whole imbroglio. The story should be included. There ought to be no statute of limitations on journalism, as there is on justice.

The reason it is news now is that new allegations have come out and new information has come out about old ones. It's not about a statute of limitations, it's that repeating something reported by a national daily newspaper a decade ago about which you have discovered no new facts or leads isn't journalism.

If some previously unknown fact suddenly emerges, such as a friend of Fiona Jones who knew some of the details, but previously kept them to herself, coming forward, that would make it news.

You really can't deny the bias of the media, (conscious and unconscious) especially the BBC which laughable claims to be totally politically neutral. Surely?

I've posted plenty of times on this site on what I think typical media biases are, and similarly about how the BBC is alternately asked to be neutral, impartial, objective, accurate, balanced, representative, inclusive, etc, none of which are really the same thing and which are often contradictory. But I also think that more specific accusations of an outright political bias, which Corbynites accuse the BBC of nearly as often as righties do, most of the time just serve to confirm what we already know about the accusers' politics.

I'll give you an example. One plucked out of so many, chosen because it happened this very day. The BBC has an agenda to influence public opinion on accepting refugees. It positions articles in certain ways, edits TV footage to advance its case, gives prominence to the side of the argument which wants to accept them. That is a political view.

Today a court case on the matter came to judgment. How does the BBC report it?

So supposing this framing for the sake of argument, how should the BBC have reported it? By the logic given here, for them to report it in the opposite way that you suggest, namely to report that the government won, would just be supporting the opposing view.

Or do you think that only the interpretations you oppose are political ones, whereas the ones you support are impartial?

(Original post by anarchism101)
The reason it is news now is that new allegations have come out and new information has come out about old ones. It's not about a statute of limitations, it's that repeating something reported by a national daily newspaper a decade ago about which you have discovered no new facts or leads isn't journalism.

If some previously unknown fact suddenly emerges, such as a friend of Fiona Jones who knew some of the details, but previously kept them to herself, coming forward, that would make it news.

I've posted plenty of times on this site on what I think typical media biases are, and similarly about how the BBC is alternately asked to be neutral, impartial, objective, accurate, balanced, representative, inclusive, etc, none of which are really the same thing and which are often contradictory. But I also think that more specific accusations of an outright political bias, which Corbynites accuse the BBC of nearly as often as righties do, most of the time just serve to confirm what we already know about the accusers' politics.

So supposing this framing for the sake of argument, how should the BBC have reported it? By the logic given here, for them to report it in the opposite way that you suggest, namely to report that the government won, would just be supporting the opposing view.

Or do you think that only the interpretations you oppose are political ones, whereas the ones you support are impartial?

To your first point, we are going to have to agree to disagree. You clearly think the wider media environment doesn't (and shouldn't) influence specific news stories, I see that happening all the time, but we are getting nowhere discussing it further I think.

To your second point, it depends on what you mean by political bias. I don't think they are biased in a party political sense, but clearly have a bias onpolitical issues. The journalists, editors and senior management share a broad perspective of the world (John Humpries describes coming into work the day after the Brexit vote and the whole of the BBC being in shock, no-one knew a Leave voter) but more, self censor to say what is sayable. As Chomsky says in a fascinating interview with Andrew Marr, who demurs in his own case: you wouldn't be where you are if you didn't."

To your final point, I was saying something different to what you thought I meant, I think. I contend that the way it was framed was culpably (if unwittingly) self revealing.

The case was lost not won, because they were supporting the side that lost. They shared in the defeat.

I put it to you, that a journalist who on a personal level supported the denial of entry of unaccompanied refugees (I doubt there are any in the whole of the BBC) would have reported that the Government had won the case.

So, I submit, you are asking the wrong question. It is not "how should the BBC have reported it?" but "how, being the BBC, could they possibly have reported it in any other way?"

The case was lost not won, because they were supporting the side that lost. They shared in the defeat.

I put it to you, that a journalist who on a personal level supported the denial of entry of unaccompanied refugees (I doubt there are any in the whole of the BBC) would have reported that the Government had won the case.

So, I submit, you are asking the wrong question. It is not "how should the BBC have reported it?" but "how, being the BBC, could they possibly have reported it in any other way?"

The reason the charity was reported as losing the case, is because they were the ones who brought it. The onus was on them, as the initiator of the case and they lost. If it was the executive bringing a case or initiating appeal proceedings, they would be described as having won or lost the case.

The BBC reporting that the government won its appeal against allowing in Syrian refugees. The reason they reported it like this was because they brought the case. It was their appeal. They were the ones challenging a judgement. The win/loss term is applied primarily to the active party who brought the claim. In the normal reporting of legal cases we tend to say 'x has lost/won his appeal'. That's exactly what happened here.

(Original post by Dez)
The reason nobody has likely heard of this case is because it's practically a non-story. There have been a couple of baseless accusations with no proof, no follow-up and no action demanded or taken. And it all happened well over a decade ago, so I don't know why you're posting in N&CA about it of all places…

Funny, because when it's a Tory the fact that it's a non story with no proof from decades ago, or a non story with no action demanded or taken from over a decade ago, or a tory with no proof, no follow up, and no action demanded or taken it is a massive story. There are better ones to go for than the one in OP that are more current and involve rape accusations (I recall hearing a lot about how people shouting rape must be taken seriously, can never lie, and the accused should be named and shamed immediately quite a bit) and cover ups, Bex Bailey was briefly a story but especially social media and people on this site have been too busy worrying about what consenting Tory MPs do in the bedroom.